## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Kingsley Roberts, a foreign-national crew member on the M/V CELEBRATION, for sexual abuse of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2243(a)) and abusive sexual contact with a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)).
- The alleged victim was a U.S. citizen passenger.
- The alleged conduct occurred aboard the M/V CELEBRATION in international waters about 63 miles off the coast of Mexico.
- The vessel was foreign-flag (registered in Liberia, flying a Liberian flag); the corporate owner was incorporated in Panama.
- The cruise itinerary had scheduled departure from and arrival in the United States; the company’s shoreside operations and headquarters were in Miami, Florida, and most passengers were U.S. citizens.
- Neither the flag state nor the place of incorporation had initiated prosecution.
- Roberts moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing the conduct did not fall within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” under 18 U.S.C. § 7(1) or § 7(8) and that international law reserved jurisdiction to the flag state.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged offenses on a foreign-flag cruise ship in international waters, during a voyage departing from and arriving in the United States, were within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” under 18 U.S.C. § 7(8) (and/or § 7(1)).
2. Whether treaties or customary international law barred U.S. criminal jurisdiction, making flag-state jurisdiction exclusive and rendering § 7(8) inapplicable or invalid.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The court held § 7(8) applied because the offense was on a foreign vessel during a voyage with a scheduled U.S. departure/arrival and was committed against a U.S. national.
- The court concluded exercising jurisdiction under § 7(8) was consistent with international law, including passive-personality and protective principles.
- The court indicated § 7(1) could also support jurisdiction on these facts, although § 7(8) provided the direct basis.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 7(8) extends federal “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction” to the extent permitted by international law to offenses committed by or against U.S. nationals on foreign vessels during voyages scheduled to depart from or arrive in the United States.
- Flag-state jurisdiction on the high seas is not necessarily exclusive; treaty provisions recognizing flag-state authority do not categorically preclude other states from asserting jurisdiction where recognized international-law bases apply.
- International law permits victim-based (passive-personality) and protective jurisdiction where a state has a substantial interest in protecting its nationals and regulating conduct closely connected to its territory and commerce.
- Absent an actual competing foreign prosecution, comity concerns alone do not require dismissal of a U.S. prosecution otherwise authorized by statute and consistent with international law.
- Congress may enact extraterritorial criminal statutes covering conduct on the high seas when tied to U.S. interests, including protection of U.S. nationals and regulation of foreign commerce.

## Conclusion

The court held that federal jurisdiction existed under 18 U.S.C. § 7(8) to prosecute a foreign crew member for sexual offenses against a U.S. passenger on a foreign-flag cruise ship in international waters during a voyage departing from and returning to the United States, and it rejected treaty-based and international-law objections to that exercise of jurisdiction.


United States v. Roberts, 1 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. La. 1998)